Opinion

Kenya Election Violence and the Police Response

The recent elections in Kenya
raised tensions both nationally and internationally with many fearing a repeat
of the violence seen in the 2007/8 elections, which claimed the lives of more
than 1,200 people and left more than 600,000 displaced from their homes.
Despite a predominantly peaceful electoral process in 2013, many still feared the
occurrence of violence this time round. As a Kenyan
economist commented: “We
are hung up with 2007 and 2008, which were very specific circumstances.”

Police warnings

As with previous elections, the
country came to a standstill with most businesses remaining closed and people
staying indoors for the better part of the election week. Some residents of
cosmopolitan areas such as Nairobi also opted
to leave for rural areas perceived to safer for their ethnic homogeneity.
Others who could afford it left the country as they awaited the election outcome.

In efforts to deter violence,
voters were urged to go home immediately after casting their vote and
politicians warned against instigating violence. The police also warned that
more than 150,000
state agents would be deployed for purposes of ensuring electoral security.

Flawed primaries and a violent outbreak

Even before the polling day, the
police got to showcase their tough standpoint when they responded
to a surge of violence that erupted during the political party primaries in
April 2017. The violence followed logistical challenges in the management of
the primaries, as well as accusations of election malpractice
and reportedly
resulted in the death of two people nationwide.

As perhaps demonstrated by the
flawed party primaries, the unprecedented
number of political aspirants in 2017 also increased the potential for violence
as the extra competition could naturally result in more conflict. Ethnic
mobilisation – a key feature of past Kenyan elections – also elicited fear
of election-related violence. To compound this threat, the use of social media
and digital technologies for posting hateful
and incendiary comments and the
circulation of fake
news were also seen as possible contributing
factors to a violent outcome and instilled fear among already-tense voters.

Polling day

When the 8th August
polling day arrived it was largely calm and peaceful except for some challenges
at a few polling stations that were easily resolved and hardly required the
intervention of security forces. However, a strong police presence was felt,
especially in informal settlements and areas marked as violence
hotspots.

The tallying and transmission of
the election results began immediately after voting. The following day, the
provisional tally of presidential results indicated the incumbent, Uhuru
Kenyatta, leading with a sizeable percentage of 54% over National Super
Alliance (NASA) leader, Raila Odinga’s 45%. NASA leaders then released
statements claiming to have proof that the elections transmission was rigged.

Anticipating the official
declaration of Kenyatta as the successful candidate on 11th August,
Odinga had earlier that day refused to be party to the declaration of election
results. Amid celebrations after declaration of Kenyatta and his deputy,
William Ruto as the successful candidates, demonstrations broke out in areas
considered to be opposition strongholds including some parts of Nairobi,
Kisumu, Migori, and Siaya counties among others.

Accusations of excessive force used by security forces

The demonstrations were met by a
vicious crackdown by security forces. Heavy gunfire was
heard in some of the places where protests took place including Mathare, Lucky
Summer and Kibera slums in Nairobi and Kondele slum in Kisumu. According to the Kenya National Commission on
Human Rights (KNCHR), 24 people, including women and children, were killed by
the police as a result of this process. The police were accused
of using excessive force in response to the demonstrations, including through the
firing of live ammunition at protesters. The United Nations Basic Principles on
the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials requires law
enforcement officers to use lethal force only when strictly unavoidable to
protect life and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these
objectives. The police in Kenya are yet to justify their use of live ammunition
when dealing with protestors.

Investigations needed

The Nairobi County Police Commander,
however, maintains that the force used was proportionate
to the force used by protesters. Mr. Japheth Koome argued that officers
only shot in response to criminals who opened fire against the police officers
first. The official position was that the officers acted within the law and
that the force used was necessary
to protect life and property of the Kenyan people. Moreover, the Inspector
General of Police maintains that allegations of police killings by opposition
politicians and KNCHR are false.

At this point, there ought to be
an investigation into the allegations made against the police. The Independent
Policing and Oversight Authority (IPOA) should launch a nationwide
investigation of the process and report on the alleged misconduct of the
police. This should follow a transparent process so as to assure the public
that the investigation was conducted independently. The state also ought to
publicly speak against police brutality. This is important in order to
guarantee equal protection for all, including protestors and to dispel claims
of the state machinery disproportionately attacking opposition supporters.

The people should also not be denied their constitutionally
guaranteed right to Freedom of Assembly that allows them to have peaceful
demonstrations. Citizens should be encouraged to report matters of human rights
violations to human rights bodies such as KNCHR and IPOA for investigations
through the toll-free lines available. Police should also refrain from
violating the rights of the protestors unless deemed genuinely necessary for
the protection of life and property. Force used must also be non-lethal i.e.
not use firearms unless the gravity of the situation makes such non-lethal use
of force unavoidable and less extreme means would prove insufficient.

The role of police and politicians in future elections

The conduct of the police in
these elections shows that violence can be reduced if demonstrations are well managed.
This places an onus not only on police but also on protestors and politicians. While
police should receive better training on managing riots, protestors also need
to ensure that they act peacefully within the limits of their right to freedom
of assembly. Improved conduct by both police and public would reduce the police-civilian
strain and encourage opportunities for better relations,
including through community policing, which would serve to reduce crime and
violence during elections.

Politicians themselves also have
an important role to play – especially in the age of social media – and should
publicly shun violence from their supporters and refrain from making false or
incendiary statements on social media. Politicians should lead by example in
efforts to reduce tension from all sides.